musichunch
-
Posts
318 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by musichunch
-
-
So now you include hearing someone speak and, more importantly, observing how someone acts, in determining their character. That is fair and it is what reasonable people need make a better informed determination as well. Merely looking at someone to determine their character is just not enough. Thanks for clearing that up.
Of course. I probably didn't make myself clear.
However, there are psychics who claim they can deep read somebody just by looking at a picture. Character reading was popular in the 18th and 19th century based on head shape. It's been debunked, but I believe there was some truth in reading people based on just their faces. But that's heading in a metaphysical direction.
But overall I believe I can get a really good feel on who somebody generally is just by observing them or interacting with them for several minutes. Some people are better than this than others and I believe it's a skill that can be fostered.
Now I'm not saying I can know everything about somebody, but I can get a good feel for their general trustworthiness, self-esteem, levels of happiness, etc. General stuff, not specifics. GODD was good at this which was probably related to his work with horses. You saw that with his reads on Bylsma, Lindy, and Darcy. I felt he was right on with all of them.
This is the kind of stuff that leads to, "we know this guy is guilty, we just have to figure out how make the evidence point that way".
It could. But I think that's more confirmation bias, mob mentality, community conformity, and personal grudges, rather than character reading. One doesn't have to go with the other. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree, reading from body language and actions is valuable insight in some cases. But making the determination of innocence and guilt is NOT one of those cases.
As for your 2nd point, I don't see why it can't be considered in with all the other evidence for a juror. I understand why it shouldn't be the ONLY determinant of innocence and guilt. But to include it with everything else? What's wrong with that. Again, baby out with the bathwater.
I'm a believer that your subconscious mind knows far more than our conscious minds.
Here's an article from just a few months ago
When it comes to detecting lies, you should trust your instinct, research suggests.
We are better at identifying liars when we rely on initial responses rather than thinking about it, say psychologists.
Generally we are poor at spotting liars - managing only slightly better than flipping a coin.
But our success rate rises when we harness the unconscious mind, according to a report in Psychological Science.
-
You don't get it at all.
I don't believe anything told to me by someone so arrogant as to believe he can divine a person's character simply by looking at him. There is a word (or two) for that.
OK....I believe that ANYBODY can get a general feel of a person's character by watching him speak, act, and move for a period of time. Some may be naturally better, but like muscle strength, it can be built up. I'm no special snowflake, I see it as a latent power inherent in everybody. I believe even you K-9 can do it, if you earnestly wanted to. Now I'm not saying you can know everything about a person just by looking at him, but I believe you can generally figure out somebody is an ###### or slimeball by looking at him, some moreso than others.It may be borderline metaphysical, comparable to auras and vibes, which may turn off the skeptics here but if you haven't noticed, I don't see science's consensus opinion as absolute truth. In fact, I tend to trust older cultures on many things that science tells me is false.I believe many of the things that we accept as indisputable fact nowadays in our smarty pants culture is in fact 100% wrong, so to me, it's arrogant to think that we CAN'T read people's character AT ALL, and that you know for a fact we can't, and that anybody claiming to think we can is arrogant. It's sort of a reverse arrogance.So to summarize what you misinterpreted:I'm arrogant - Anybody can do itSimply looking at him - Watching him speak, act, move, and react for a period of timeAnd besides, nobody here thinks you can get ANY read on a person by watching him for a period of time? I don't believe that. -
I can't spare you until I know if you sink or float.
I get it. You don't believe anything that isn't told to you by people in white lab coats. Now please either contribute to the discussion or get lost.
-
I agree on character read, in life and with your assessments here. But our information is heavily influenced by what the story tellers chose to share. That makes me less confident in that read compared to first hand.
I also agree 100% on the FBI BS.
But 12 people, with a lot more detail and testimony and investment than us, convicted him. That counts for something.
I think the media is mostly parading any angle they can to get eyeballs since it's so hot. The crush angle on the defense attorney and journalist girl with glasses are especially funny. The prosecution story is an obvious one as "new" or difference since the rest of America is consuming the defense's.
The thing is....I don't think the documentary is THAT biased.
Sure I didn't like that they didn't include the "creep" testimony, and while I agree the physical evidence was more important, I don't buy they didn't have any time during the 10 hours to fit it in. And every now and then there are some misplaced reaction shots from the prosecutors that are better off included in a reality TV show.
But overall, I don't see what they did that was so unfair to the prosecution. I feel like the concept of "what the filmmakers didn't share" is more persuasive than what they actually didn't share. Did that make sense? I'm not sure how to best put it into words.
As for the jury, you seem to have a lot more faith that me in the consensus judgement of others. One former juror was so sick by the case that he left, and another anonymous juror came out against the verdict recently. They even mentioned that at first 7 said not guilty and 2 were undecided, then they were all swayed by 3 stubborn jurors.
In a small town filled with posters like K9, it's not easy to have an opinion different from everyone else. Truth has nothing to do with it. It takes an enormous amount of courage to say "not guilty" in that atmosphere. Unfortunately, nobody had enough courage.
Character reading just by looking at a person. Nice.
I forget, does the witch float or sink?
Ugh. Spare me.
-
Good stuff. I'm on board with the County sucked, really bad, and all that. I'm struggling with whether he actually did it. Consider this county is relatively small, maybe like Wayne County here in Western NY (similar population, bordering a great lake, rural/agriculture). Community members know who the bad characters are. That's not to say something random couldn't have happened, or that a conviction is justified given the evidence. And obviously his rape conviction reversal is the counter to this line of thinking...but twice? Add to that that he asked the Autotrader office for Halbach specifically to come to the house (testimony left out of netflix), and blocked his # when calling her directly. SabresBillsfan brings up the point of IQ, and the documentary addressed that too (~70 for Avery per the one past lawyer), so yeah, is he smart enough to do it and destroy pretty much all the physical evidence? Nuts.
Community members in those types of areas can be enormously biased due to years of family fighting.
I used to frequent WebSleuths back in the day before it was taken over by religious grandmothers and one of the cold cases they solved was the 1951 murder of 13 year old Lonnie Jones in rural Idaho. The thread got long and had a few dedicated amateur investigators. One of them took the time to travel to Orofino and meet with family members and law enforcement who told him the story never released to the public.
Basically the family of the victim had a decades old grudge against a semi-retarded neighbor who refused to submit to their bullying back in the 40's and 50's. When their teenage relative was murdered they decided this rival of theirs did it and refused to consider anybody else for 60 years. They didn't have enough to charge him but they all went to their graves believing he did it. Through some detective work and sleuthing through newspapers of the day, they discovered a man was in town for the circus the night of the murder who was arrested a few years later for child molestation. This man ended up dying in jail but they gathered a solid amount of evidence that this man did it.
The greatest injustice was that the accused was actually a great guy who stood up for himself to people nobody else dared stand up to and tried to live a good life despite his disability. He was never exonerated during his lifetime.
Do you think they're going to reopen the case? No way. The family WANTS this rival of theirs to have done it. I imagine something similar is happening in the Avery case.
Add to that that he asked the Autotrader office for Halbach specifically to come to the house (testimony left out of netflix), and blocked his # when calling her directly. SabresBillsfan brings up the point of IQ, and the documentary addressed that too (~70 for Avery per the one past lawyer), so yeah, is he smart enough to do it and destroy pretty much all the physical evidence? Nuts.I just think everything I saw overwhelms all this talk of phone calls and *67, which frankly can be explained considering they had a working relationship. Did he creep on her? Maybe. But ask any attractive girl, they run into creeps everyday. Most of them aren't murderers.
And a creep is in the eye of the beholder. What's creepy to one girl is a turn on to another. By itself it's suspicious, but looking at the whole body of work, I'm ready to dismiss it.
I'm just a believer of reading the character of somebody just by looking at him. Fassbender and Colborn look like they're dying of guilt. Lenk's personality reminds me of any spook's personality. Kratz is one of the most smug, disingenous people you can ever run into. The co-prosecutor is an absolute slimeball. And I've never wanted to punch someone more than I wanted to punch Gene Kusche during his deposition. I know a couple people just like him. Carbon copies.
On the other hand, Steven Avery and his family are simple, common sense "folks". Not the brightest, but bright enough to do what they do. Is Avery into exhibitionism? Perhaps, but that doesn't make you a murderer. When Avery speaks, I have no doubt he's innocent. Dean Strang and Jerry Buting truly believe in his innocence, you can tell. I'm not sure Kratz even believes Avery is guilty. Hell, Buting reminds me of Tim Murray, anybody else see it?
And this whole EDTA thing. You have to be an absolute slave to authority to buy it. And that FBI guy, ugh.
The idea that you can watch that show and then be swayed by this "new evidence" is unbelievable to me. What I think is going on is that all the major blogs are spending more time talking about what's not included in the documentary, rather than what WAS in the documentary. Which seems very "off" to me. Since people still have faith in the media, they subconsciously think "Hmmm, if they're not outraged, perhaps this case isn't as cut and dry as I thought".
The public on social media is outraged, yet the blogs (corporate owned), which are supposedly the voice of the people, are saying "Meh". See the disconnect? I don't think that's a coincidence.
Why would the media be more interested in silencing the public outcry? Since when were they so interested in both sides of a story? Wouldn't they get better ratings and clicks with a Trial of the Century type scandal? It stinks of disinformation and a couple memos to editors "from the top".
-
I'm with you both, just looking at all sides. Re: disinformation, this stuff is pre-rape conviction and all that. It's not like it was made up, he admitted to the cat and chasing down the cousin(?) in the car w/ gun. Dude has a history as a bad guy. $35M and huge embarrassment for the sheriff though, that's
motivation, and more plausible then the crazy details Dassey provided.
What I meant by disinformation is that there is an enormous amount of incriminating evidence towards Manitowoc County in the documentary. Then once word of mouth started, the "counter-evidence" magically appeared on social media in neat bullet points and most of it circumstantial or based on witness testimony. And again it's stuff that requires us to put our trust in the Manitowoc County prosecutors.
Yet this witness testimony of a towel story and the victim calling Avery a creep is outweighing the lack of physical evidence in the minds of lots of impressionable people who are either too lazy to watch the entire documentary, or just wait for the public consensus to form before making up their own mind.
Here is what matters in order of importance:
1. Physical Evidence
2. Recorded Evidence (Video, photographs, etc.)
3. Witness Testimony
"Oh, Avery was a creep and called her a bunch of times according to an anonymous co-worker.....hmmmmm.....I don't know now".
Bam, again they trust the word of prosecutors who's word has proven to be unworthy of trust. Again they have retrograde amnesia of everything they just witnessed. And again law enforcement/FBI/whoever is in charge plants seeds of doubt in the public to stop a gigantic public outcry.
What's the first rule of breaking down a social movement? Conquer and divide. Disorganize. They are succeeding.
-
Yeah idk. Don't they say if you torture animals when young you are like X times as likely to be in prison / commit violent acts towards people? He was convicted of torching the cat before serving time for the rape I believe. Young & dumb I guess?
Sorry, they said he used "*67" (or whatever) calls to the victim to block his identity when calling her 2 or 3 times on 10/31.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/
"The young Avery didn’t unintentionally set fire to a cat, as “Making a Murderer” suggests, but poured gasoline on the animal and then threw it into a bonfire, according the Associated Press. And Avery didn’t only threaten a female cousin at gunpoint, an incident the documentary portrays as the unfortunate actions of an immature teen, but is also alleged to have raped a young girl and threatened to kill her family if they spoke out, according another story in Post Crescent (paywalled). If we’re to believe Dassey’s conversations with police, Avery had also molested his cousins. “I even told them about Steven touching me,” Dassey explains to his mother after one of the interviews with police."
Here's the thing about all that, and before I begin I want to mention that I did just read the entire article you linked and I agree that it is pretty incriminating stuff at the surface.
I have a tremendous skepticism of law enforcement, authority, and the media. Far more than the average "I don't trust the media" and "any bad people in those positions are rogue" type of person. So here's my point of view on this and something that keeps nagging me:
If law enforcement was willing to hide evidence that would exonerate Avery of rape in the 90's which allowed a real, known rapist to stay on the streets; if they were willing to plant keys, blood, and bones to tie Avery to murder; if they were willing to frame Avery and allow the real murderers to stay out of bars; if they were willing to coerce a low-IQ 16 year old to falsely incriminate himself and Avery and spend most of his life in prison on something they know he probably had nothing to do with. If you believe they were willing to lie, steal, plant, hide, and just generally do the most despicable things anybody in authority can do nowadays......
Why would you believe hearsay reports of Avery in a towel? Why would you believe the drop of sweat story? Why would you believe Dassey was telling the truth about getting molested? Why would you believe the story of this rape of a young girl?
If I have seen enough to make me believe he was framed on the big things, why would I believe their word on the small things? And put my trust in that hearsay, when I just witnessed 10 hours that made me come to the conclusion Avery is innocent? There is a word some people should research that all of this "counter-evidence" reminds me of. That word is "disinformation".
-
How did you arrive at this? From the radio communications where he confirms the plate? Just curious cause to me it seemed that suggestion by Defense was pretty weak, he could have just been confirming with base "here's what we are looking for..right?".
I keep going back and forth on his guilt. The x62 / towel creepy stuff, the history of violence. He was about to get paid, he was pumped, f-it, above the law. Party time! That type of thing. But man that case is weak and that sheriff office/da sucks so bad.
Is that realistic behavior though? It's one thing to be a creep, but a whole other thing to be a corpse mutilator. Especially when you have zero history of that type of behavior. And that's considering those towel reports are for real, which should be noted considering how questionable all the other evidence is.
As for the 62 phone calls, do we know over what period? Over a week? Over a year? There's plenty of people I work with where I can easily have 62+ phone calls over the course of a year.
-
Not a chance, the corruption runs way too deep on this one and the ripple effect it would have on law enforcement and government.....they'll never let it happen. It's going to have to take an officer coming forward
Your words continue to be true.
There has been a trend of pop culture blogs writing stories in the tone of "Stop Petitioning the White House, It's Dumb".
From Steven Avery to Justin Bieber: It’s time to cool it with the White House petitionshttp://www.avclub.com/article/steven-avery-justin-bieber-its-time-cool-it-white--230430
The logic being that Obama can't pardon Avery, only the state can.
What bothers me deeply about these reverse-knee-jerk stories is that it misses the point completely. People are trying to do whatever they can about this injustice, and by petitioning they are hoping that our elected officials will figure out themselves how to move this case along. I mean, that is why we hire them right? Who cares if it's the state that needs to pardon Avery, then have the White House transfer the damn petition to the state then. Why do we need the AV Club to tell us what we need to do? And make us feel like idiots about it.
Growing up as kids, what did they teach us about making change in the Country? Vote, sign petitions, and write letters to your Congressman. Well, that's what people are doing. What else can people do other than that? Why should a regular citizen need to learn the intricacies of the Wisconsin legal system in order to voice their displeasure?
These articles remind me of the scene in Ikiru where they tell those mothers to keep going to different departments until they get so sick of the bureaucracy that they quit their cause.
There has been a strange silence from the media on the Avery case. Oh, there has been buzz of course, but the outrage in the media pales compared to the outrage on social media. It seems that the Avery case is considered more pop culture, celebrity, sideshow entertainment rather than a 2016 Trial of the Century it should be.
Ultimately, as Americans and as denizens of the internet, we can spend our leisure time however we please. If we want to park our ###### on our couches and watch 10 hours of well-made dramatic television about a guy who may or may not have been wrongfully convicted of murder, more power to us. And if we then want to fill in a quick web form urging our president to pardon some guy we saw on TV, great. That’s perfectly legitimate.
It’s not productive, though. It’s a Band-Aid on a hole in the dam. Clicking a We The People petition might make us feel a little better about ourselves—like we didn’t just spend our entire day idly scrolling through Tumblr and analyzing which of our high school classmates has aged the best—but it won’t make for actual change. And the thing is, actual change is not out of reach. It’s negligibly harder to email Brad Schimel than it is to email Barack Obama, and it’s only slightly harder still to kick your Starbucks money for the day over to the Center For Wrongful Convictions. In all fairness, those outcries aren’t necessarily the ones you’ll see written about jokingly on sites like The A.V. Club. But the focused, thoughtful grassroots efforts are the ones that could ultimately make a difference in the lives of people like Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey.
Now you may agree with the AV Club on this one. But what's the goal of a grassroots campaign again? Isn't it to gain attention from politicians and media outlets like the AV Club? Isn't the 10 part Netflix documentary a pretty good example of a grassroots campaign? So why isn't the AV Club taking up the cause of Steven Avery but instead putting the issue back in the public's lap?
Does anybody else see the circular logic here? The AV Club has more power to push this Avery case along than any single Joe Schmo reading the site, yet they're tossing the hot potato back to us.
If the media's true goal is money and eyeballs, then why aren't they milking this Avery thing for all that it's worth? The interest is there, the scandal is there, the heroes and the villains are there, the polarization is there. Why are they more interested in Leonardo DiCaprio giggling at Lady Gaga at the Golden Globes? The reporting to national interest ratio is off and it stinks of censorship and belittling of the public opinion.
Where's the NY Times here? Washington Post? Why do I need to read articles on Entertainment Weekly to learn about the case?
The traditional media is the voice of the people. Not social media. 70% of the public may be in favor of a cause, but if the media makes them feel like a minority, nothing will happen. And those 30% against would be happy to switch if they heard they were in fact in the minority.
The problem is not that the public is sending petitions to the wrong mailbox, the problem is that the media is not taking up this cause for either legitimate or shady reasons IMO.
-
Not a chance, the corruption runs way too deep on this one and the ripple effect it would have on law enforcement and government.....they'll never let it happen. It's going to have to take an officer coming forward
Hopefully. We already have jurors coming forward.
The juror, Richard Mahler, who was released on the first day of deliberations for personal reasons, told Golodryga: “According to the evidence that I reviewed in the court room the six weeks I was there, it didn’t all add up.”
Mahler said he could understand why another juror is afraid for his safety. Mahler said he feared for his life during the trial and still does now. He told Golodryga that he has been “getting a lot of threats on social media.”
https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/former-steven-avery-case-juror-on-making-a-154605397.html
The filmmakers behind smash Netflix hit Making a Murderer revealed that a juror has come forward to say that Steven Avery was framed and that he was only convicted because the juror feared for his or her safety.Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, who spent nearly a decade making the true-crime documentary series, told the Today show Tuesday that after the show's Dec. 18 debut, a juror in Avery's case reached out to them and spoke at length about the case.
"We were contacted by one of the jurors who sat through Steven Avery's trial and shared what us their thoughts and they told us that they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty, they believe that Steven was framed by law enforcement," Ricciardi shared. "They believe he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion it should take place far away from Wisconsin."
http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-believes-he-deserves-a-new-trial
-
They will NEVER get out of jail, neither one of them. The only possibility would be for one of the cops to confess on his death bed and that's never going to happen.
Why do you think? You don't think the national tide could force an investigation, retrial, or acquittal?
-
But all of our other promising young players haven't hit walls. I don't count Ennis, and Kane has had injuries and is at least scoring
Doesn't have to be all of our young players hitting walls. Take a look at Rex Ryan, Gilmore and Darby have great years, and Hughes, Mario, Dareus, Kyle, Brown, Bradham, etc. have down years.
That's what happens when you try to fit players to your system. I'm more of a football x's and o's guy than a hockey x's and o's guy, but it's clear to me that there is something going on with Bylsma's system and Girgs.
IMO a great coach would FIND a way to make Girgs productive. A coach that will be fired in 2-3 years will trade Girgensons. The kid has IT. I don't like to see it go to waste.
I want to add that I still support Bylsma, but nothing makes me turn my back on a coach faster than forcing your system on great players.
-
I've watched about half of it so far. The entire situation is REALLY bad and it's beautiful that karma is turning on that entire department.
Don't forget the reason the murder charges happened: to avoid paying that $30M+. And like the defense attorney said, it's not about this one county paying $30M, but about every county having to pay $30M to every ex-convict they exonerate due to planting evidence or corruption. I can't even imagine how many men and women are in jail for crimes they didn't commit because the police department and prosecutors office wanted to make their jobs easier.
I've been seeing "the other side" posts on Facebook, showing some evidence that makes Avery look suspicious. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but seeing how far the department went to frame him, I have no qualms about assuming that evidence is made up too.
You don't need to be an empath to look at those police officers, sheriffs, prosecutors, and public defense attorneys to see what kind of people they are. I'm hoping some ambitious politician looking for votes will take on this cause now. Bravo to the filmmakers and bravo to Netflix.
-
Whenever a promising young player hits a wall with a new coaching staff, you need to take a look at the coaching staff.
-
Can we just avoid this and all assume everyone has the same opinions on everything around sexual assault cases, particularly those of the high profile variety? No? Well, one can hope.
Yeah, let's throw Pat Kane under the bus, but when it happens to one of our own let's try to ignore it. Funny how some people's values are second to their favorite hockey team. Let's be loyal to some guy we don't know that got traded here a few months ago because he's good at hockey.
And call posters who don't like him racist.
This current situation hardly exonerates you.
Your opinion I care about least.
-
Hmmmm....Yeah....I guess my opinions of Kane were really racist.
I predicted locker room problems, but I didn't exactly predict sexual assault problems.
Nope.....Musichunch is definitely racist.
-
I don't think Lindy would've handled the tank very well. He would've clashed with Murray big time.
For every Lindy, you need a Darcy. For every Dan, you need a Tim.
-
Is betting and running a rigged gaming ring acceptable to the people of the greater Boston area? It must have some form of communal support in order for it to continue for years. This also falls in line with the local populace's thinking the Patriots never cheated. Sad.
The Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins....all champions in the last 10 years. They've even managed to take one of our own and turn him into a Super Bowl champion.
Do I need to bring up the M word?
-
Hmm. Maybe.
It's also a huge leap to go from recreational wagering to throwing games.
I'll also add that, NCAA hockey players, as a cohort, probably have more spending cash on-hand than a lot of other student athletes. Hockey families in America tend to have resources.
All true. But the biggest, most hardcore gamblers I've ever met when I was a college student were at Williamsville East/Clarence parties, not in Buffalo, if you know what I mean.
But we don't know what kind of recreational wagering was going on. Does it say anywhere there was simple recreational wagering?
-
The reports on BU have been uniform in saying there was no wagering on any hockey.
And the NCAA is so strict, this could be as simple as having a pay-in NFL fantasy football league.
Maybe not the most likely scenario, but ... .
It's a slippery slope though. These are broke NCAA players.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to say "Hey, I can bet on Phil Mickelson to win the British Open with 10:1 odds, OR I can get a group of my teammates to bet on our own games and practically guarantee a loss".
-
First thing I thought of.
Hard to speculate if Eichel is involved. Him and Rodrigues were linemates, but were they close friends? How much was this common knowledge on the team? Were they betting on their games or other team's games? I'd imagine they'd have better odds of winning if they bet on their own games.
How many players on the Sabres knew about Vanek's gambling? Anybody here have any insider anecdotes on that? Most of the players are off the team now.
-
Couple thoughts:
1. I feel like the offsides rules was implemented on purpose in order to disallow goals which result in a score the NHL doesn't want. For example, the goal that was disallowed last night resulted in the game extending into OT, which keeps 3rd period advertising slots more valuable. It also gives the NHL-favored LA Kings another point in the standings.
2. I was looking at the standings and I couldn't understand why so many teams were bunched in within a few points. The Sabres SEEM like a playoff contender, but the standings tell me there are 10 other teams just like them. I think the NHL is purposely creating rules in order to extend games and keep them as close as possible, exactly like how the NFL does. The reason it feels like the Sabres are toe to toe with every team, is because nearly every team is toe to toe with every team. Not including 3-4 "winners" and 3-4 "losers". Got to have some of those every year.
3. Eichel is SOFTER THAN DOWNY PAPER TOWELS. I hope that it's just because he's 19, but Reinhart has twice the balls Eichel has. I don't know if he's the best hockey player on the team but he's definitely the best figure skater in Buffalo since Kristi Yamaguchi came to town. I refuse to bow down to someone who is afraid of getting a scratch on his forearm.
4. Risto is the first player in a Sabres uniform to make Lucic question his manhood. It got to a point that other LA Kings were taking shots at Risto in order to rescue Lucic's confidence. Rob Ray saw it and even mentioned it on TV.
5. When did Rick and the gang stop being homers and start being pro-NHL first? During the offsides review it was like they were TRYING to find a reason to disallow the goal. Sounds like somebody got a memo reminding them who really writes their checks.
-
Who named the title of this thread?
I believe it purposely marginalizes the nature (and potential truth) of the things we are discussing in this thread. It will also scare away any new lurkers or posters.
A better title, and perhaps more genuine one, would be "Pegula, Benson, Penn State, Sandusky, and Pedophilia Scandals". But I imagine that association would freak too many people out, and hurt some people's interests. Better to hide it behind "family squabbles and scandals".
-
Your timing is off. Pegula bought the Sabres 7 months before the Sandusky story broke.
We can criticize Pegula, Benson, and anyone else we want whenever we want. It's when people deliberately cross a line and accuse them of being involved in and covering up pedophilia without anything other than a tinfoil conspiracy theory that it becomes a problem.
Especially from someone who has offered several other tinfoil conspiracy theories over the years.
What about that timing is off? He jumped ship BEFORE the story broke, giving plenty reason to believe Benson or somebody else gave him the heads up in time to save his reputation. Are you trying to say Sandusky only started raping kids after Pegula bought the Sabres? Or do you think the media learned about the investigation the same day Benson and Penn State did?
And I'm frankly getting sick of everybody accusing me of trying to connect Pegula to covering up pedophilia. Where have I ever said that? I am trying to say that Pegula is not the savior we think he is and bought the team as much to get away from Penn State as anything else. AND he happened to bring along somebody who we have reason to suspect might have had a gut feeling what was going on behind closed doors.
And there goes the lazy "tin foil hat" thing. You're better than that. Discrediting by association. False association at that.
Quite right.
Criticism is fine. Libel by implication, not so much.
The conspiracy theories need more facts to endure.
Oh, and I have never seen any legs to the 'people 'round here have Sabre/Pegula connections.' At all. That might be among the more unfounded theories I see here.
p.s. Being part of a large regional firm that once upon a time did some work for the Larry Quinn era Sabres doesn't cut it. Not even close.
Says the "Pat Kane definitely raped her" crowd.
And yeah sure, being paid by a group of people "once upon a time" who owned the Sabres "doesn't cut it". Get out of here.
Maybe if posters here did some work for Pat Kane "once upon a time" there would have been some more "caution".
Funny how one person's long time friends and associates are another person's cronies. #Spin
My long-time friends aren't in charge of finances for sham charities who are a front for raping children. And if they were, they probably wouldn't be my friends anymore, much less untouchable business partners.
Sabres' brass LOVES Leafs fans at FNC
in The Aud Club
Posted
Couldn't have said it better. It always seems to be the Anti-Pegula posts that make the mods go berserk.